Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Registered Voters Became Likely Voters

Posted on 11/07/2012 5:30:33 AM PST by Andrei Bulba

Eventually the boring little things everyone takes for granted, become the great big things that bite you hard. For many decades the majority of our fellow citizens were far more liberal and democratic than the electorate which actually voted.

We constantly say, oh that's a poll of "registered voters" it doesn't count. Or even worse, we say are you kidding? It's a poll of ADULTS not even people registered to vote. Then we discuss how those people are too lazy to vote and they don't count.

Well reality is a tough thing. They did count because they could vote. America has long been a country where if everyone voted we'd have a liberal disaster on our hands. As democrats engineered the demographics of NY, Cal., and many other big states we said, boy it's a good thing the whole country isn't like those places, we'd be cooked.

Well last night the chickens came home to roost. They came home to vote. We're talking about the America that lives in New York City and New Jersey, watched their fellow citizens murdered on the real September 11 - and if they had been the likely voters, there never would have been a War On Terror, or lots of other policies the rest of us took for granted.

Republicans ignore those non voters because they won't vote for Republicans anyway. Republicans use those folks to scare the rest of us so we'll elect Republicans in more conservative areas. Democrats usually ignore them because they always vote democrat no matter what.

Barack Obama offered the perfect storm, a black liberal democrat who could turn registered voters into actual voters. And the disaster came. The turnout models in the polls were correct because he turned them out. Blacks, 18 year old kids, hispanics, single mothers, people from school districts so bad they aren't really schools, they are just places for the formerly non voting class to hang out or sell drugs.

These voters don't give a damn how many ships the navy has, or whether Egypt goes radical, heck many are muslims. They WANT Obamacare and things like the deficit are meaningless to them. Harsh words here on a conservative site, but in their world it's just fine.

Granted most polls show a slight majority don't want Obamacare, etc. But guess what? This time WE became the "registered voters". The actual voters were the 99% black population who turned out for Obama, the unwed mothers who want a handout, and so on. All the Americans who were there but didn't count because they didn't bother, well now they bothered.

What do you do when most of your fellow citizens want an America you believe is a horrible misguided mistake? Well it's not easy. All the talk about how blacks, hispanics, etc, have more in common with us doesn't cut it. How many conservative republicans are prepared to actually get those votes rather than pay lip service? Can you even get those without becoming liberal?

This is the hard part. Can we really reverse the demographics on immigration? Seems damn unlikely. Do we just sit it out till Obama isn't on the ballot? You think democrats can't figure this out and keep doing it?

It's not easy but we took these registered voters for granted- just like the democrats did-forever. A healthy solution for America has to include them. Either they become more conservative or we can hang it up. And that has to mean more than conservatives just saying that those people don't realize our policies are better for them.

America can't afford to keep losing California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the young vote, the female vote- because they have become The Vote. And they just reelected a truly lousy president because to them he's just fine. They are now the likely voters.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: vanity; whyithappened
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: kabar
Let's also remember that the 47% are the 47% because Ronald Reagan and George Bush enacted tax policies that dropped many of them of the tax rolls.

Not everything is the other side's fault.

21 posted on 11/07/2012 6:56:17 AM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

We both are right, but the electorate that voted was the Obama electorate. That means THEY were the likely voters.

And any “conservative” that stayed home on this one is at least as stupid as the Obama voters. So if we can’t call them likely voters against Obama they may as well vanish. In fact, they did.


22 posted on 11/07/2012 10:51:33 AM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant

Won’t be a new person, will be Hilary.


23 posted on 11/07/2012 10:53:24 AM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kabar
All good points, but I don't see why that would automatically have negative consequences for Republican candidates. Immigrants -- especially legal ones -- tend to be among the most upwardly mobile demographic groups in the U.S. You are assuming that the immigrant who moved here in 2005 is an automatic Democratic voter. More importantly, you're assuming that his children will be Democrats, too.

The latter point is critical, because this is where the Republicans can make some serious inroads among immigrants. Once these immigrants become "mainstream taxpayers," they are no longer reliable residents of the Democratic plantation. The Republican Party must figure out how to appeal to them.

I'll take it one step further, too. One of the most dramatic shifts in American politics over the next few decades -- and it has already started -- will be the natural resentment that will build between recent immigrants and our nation's class of professional malcontents (the "47%") who will never get off the Democratic plantation. The GOP must figure out a way to build on this.

24 posted on 11/07/2012 3:48:06 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Christians who view the issue objectively were understandably reluctant to hitch their wagon to Mitt Romney, for Obamacare does nothing on the national level in terms of threatening religious liberty than Romneycare didn’t do in Massuchusetts.


25 posted on 11/07/2012 3:50:54 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

Voting has gotten easier. Early voting, absentee voting, in NJ even email voting. Make voting easy enough, and it’s easy to get lazy registered voters into likely voters.


26 posted on 11/07/2012 3:52:30 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (political correctness is communist thought control, disguised as good manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Good points. The irony is that Obama is more of a “Wall Street Insider” than anyone will ever want to admit.


27 posted on 11/07/2012 3:54:09 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well now we are permanently hitched to ObamaCare. It will never be repealed.


28 posted on 11/07/2012 4:00:35 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Yes, and again only Ron Paul made that point. The rest of the GOP was dead silent.


29 posted on 11/07/2012 4:09:20 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
I hate to break this to you, but it was never going to be repealed even if Romney won, the GOP maintained control of the House, and the GOP got a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Despite all the political posturing that went on in 2010, Obamacare is one of those national initiatives that is strongly supported by both major parties. In the short term, the primary purpose of the law is to be a boon for insurance companies as they underwrite a flood of new policies. In the long term, the purpose is to eradicate the private insurance industry (after it has already generated huge profits from premiums paid by/for younger people who will file very few claims) and remove a major cost item from the ledger of every major U.S. corporation.

30 posted on 11/07/2012 4:09:29 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Exactly right! The business community will be delighted to get the costs of health care off its income statements.
31 posted on 11/07/2012 4:11:07 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Just think about it. Young adults are now compelled to buy medical insurance — either directly or through an employer-sponsored plan. With few exceptions, these people generally use far less medical care than their premiums cost anyway (their premiums are inflated because insurance companies use them to support the higher claims of older policy holders). By the time these younger people are old enough that they regularly have major medical expenses, whatever “medical insurance” is left will cover little more than a medicine man dancing around a hospital bed with rattles and feathers.


32 posted on 11/07/2012 4:16:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
By 2035 or so, we will still have a program called "Medicare", but it will consist of outpatient clinics and hospices.

Of course, something like this would have happened under the GOP just as well, but the "death panels" would be run by Aetna and Humana instead of CMS. The demographics are that relentless.

Your posts show a great grasp of the realities, AC. I would -strongly- recommend Dr. Richard Fogoros' site, http://covertrationingblog.com/ - he really gets it rigut.

33 posted on 11/07/2012 4:39:07 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
That may or may not be, but I tell you about one group that you are overlooking, doctors.

Most doctors do not accept new medicare patients. One doctor I am familiar with who does internal medicine and takes mostly medicare patients told his staff that he wants to increase his patient load from 15/day to 30/day. He expects that Obamacare will be about the same.

34 posted on 11/07/2012 4:41:26 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
Do we just sit it out till Obama isn't on the ballot?

Worked in 2010.

35 posted on 11/07/2012 4:51:18 PM PST by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
All good points, but I don't see why that would automatically have negative consequences for Republican candidates. Immigrants -- especially legal ones -- tend to be among the most upwardly mobile demographic groups in the U.S. You are assuming that the immigrant who moved here in 2005 is an automatic Democratic voter. More importantly, you're assuming that his children will be Democrats, too.

It is an assumption based on fact. Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

"This Backgrounder examines the political implications of large-scale immigration. Between 1980 and 2008, 25.2 million people were granted permanent residency (green cards) by the United States. A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic. The partisan impact of immigration is relatively uniform throughout the country, even though local Republican parties have taken different positions on illegal immigration. Although high immigration may work against Democratic policy goals, such as raising wages for the poor and protecting the environment, it does improve Democratic electoral prospects. In contrast, immigration may help Republican business interests hold down wages, but it also undermines the party’s political fortunes. Future levels of immigration are likely to be a key determinant of Republicans’ political prospects moving forward.

The latter point is critical, because this is where the Republicans can make some serious inroads among immigrants. Once these immigrants become "mainstream taxpayers," they are no longer reliable residents of the Democratic plantation. The Republican Party must figure out how to appeal to them.

You seem to believe that today's immigrants are becoming "mainstream taxpayers," which is patently false. They are mostly unskilled, low paid, and uneducated and are taking more from the system than they are contributing. 57% of immigrant headed households with children are on welfare. 25% of the adults lack even a high school degree. Every year we are bringing in thru our legal immigration policies hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts.

Poverty

• In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty.

• The children of immigrants account for one-third of all children in poverty.

• Among the top sending countries, poverty is highest for immigrants and their young children from Mexico (35 percent), Honduras (34 percent), and Guatemala (31 percent); and lowest for those from Germany (7 percent), India (6 percent), and the Philippines (6 percent).

Educational Attainment

• Of adult immigrants (25 to 65), 28 percent have not completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives.

• The share of immigrants (25 to 65) with at least a bachelor’s degree is somewhat lower than that of natives — 29 vs. 33 percent.

• The large share of immigrants with relatively little education is one of the primary reasons for their lower socioeconomic status, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.

• At the same time immigration added significantly to the number of less-educated workers, the share of young, less-educated natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline began well before the current economic downturn.

Progress Over Time

• Many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. However, on average even immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives.

• The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives.

• The share of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years who lack health insurance is twice that of adult natives.

• The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years using one or more welfare programs is nearly twice that of native-headed households.

• The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years that are owner occupied is 22 percent lower than that of native households.

And most of the 40 million immigrants living in the US today (now one in 8 residents of this country compared to one in 21 in 1970) not counting their American born children favor Dems by two to one.

I'll take it one step further, too. One of the most dramatic shifts in American politics over the next few decades -- and it has already started -- will be the natural resentment that will build between recent immigrants and our nation's class of professional malcontents (the "47%") who will never get off the Democratic plantation. The GOP must figure out a way to build on this.

Most of the immigrants coming to this country are natural Democrats as they have been historically. In the past immigrants had higher levels of education compared to the native born and that goes back to the early 1900s. Today, that is not true. And we now have the welfare state. Households headed by a high school dropout receive three dollars in public benefits for every dollar paid in taxes and it doesn't matter if they are immigrants or the native born.

Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

We have now reached a tipping point that has allowed a failed President to be reelected. Immigrants have provided the margin of victory.

36 posted on 11/07/2012 5:04:00 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: el8ed2012; Lazamataz; Darksheare
TROLL ALERT!

Here Kitty, Kitty!


38 posted on 11/08/2012 9:53:20 AM PST by WVKayaker ("Mitt Romney couldn't keep up with lies and spin of Barack Obama" - Sarah Palin 10/24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

I hope you enjoy your new Amerika, ya big DUmmy!


39 posted on 11/08/2012 9:59:38 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

el8ed2012
Since Nov 8, 2012

You’re new here, AND trolling.
Interesting.


40 posted on 11/08/2012 10:01:54 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson